campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
User blog:Hopiakuta/ .
Purpose of *this* wikia "I am launching today a new Wikia website aimed at being a central meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum who think that it is time for politics to become more participatory, and more intelligent." Question: Is this wiki designed to push wiki/blog/community software usage into mainstream politics, or as a means to discuss political issues themselves? Both? I think the former is innovative and well-defined, while the latter is much harder to shape. Thanks, GChriss 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC) :Given the grassroots spontaneous nature of the wiki system, I'm not seeing any way to do the former without seeing the later happen automatically. Chadlupkes 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC) ::So, do you mean to say that "anything goes" is the rule in Wikia? That if I get enough people together, I can "mob edit" any Wikia I want and change the mission? Can I get 50 editors together and go over to the King Kong Wikia and start a debate about animal cruelty, or global warming, and there's nothing anyone can do about it? That's kind of pathetic. This is an inherent flaw with Wikia: give them no rules, guidelines, clear missions or standards, then let unregistered users make up the rules as they go along, "hoping" something good happens. Aside from being horribly naive, it's an organizational flaw - though not a flaw with the wiki concept itself - and it makes wikis unusable and unusable. - Nhprman 15:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC) :::Do we want to debate ethics or technical ability? We have the ability to go into a library and start marking up pages in books we don't like or might want to change. We don't because we know it is wrong. And I didn't say that there wasn't something that could be done. IP addresses are being blocked, Users are being blocked, vandalism is being reversed and fixed, etc. And our roads are under constant repair, our water system is being monitored for contamination, etc. Infrastructure requires maintenance from vandals and breakdowns, whether we're talking online or off. :::The guideline is that this is a wiki about political campaigns. It's a big topic, and we're 2 weeks old now. We're taking stock on what people want to handle and we're creating places for them to contribute and communicate. That's what it's all about. Chadlupkes 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I know there's a lot going on behind the scenes and that's really good. It's just that your comment (which I may have read a lot into, given that it was just one line) implied there were hands being thrown up in the air regarding the inevitability of this becoming a nasty issues-centered battleground, rather than something positive. Without a clear handle on the topic/mission of this site, I'm not even sure how can people be blocked, other than for outright vandalism and destruction of others' words and work. ::::Also, (and this is hypothetical/theoretical) are random POV and horribly slanted articles vandalism or simply the direction this is going? If it's the natural progression of the 'free market forces' apparently directing this wiki, then are they just unavoidable, and inevitable? I'd also suggest there are dozens of other places for poeple to "contribute and communicate" about hot topics that lead to partisan rhetoric and flame wars. This site is not needed for that purpose, and earns its credibility as a unique wiki only if it's radically different from the norm, which I hope it can become. - Nhprman 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :I agree with GChriss. And what's more, I think the latter (partisan rhetoric and debate purely over ISSUES) is contradictory to, and harmful to, the former (finding new and innovative ways to build a cleaner, more responsive and more effective political electoral system.) We can't do the second as we're tearing each other up over the ISSUES those campaigns will eventually be fought over. I can't see how building yet another site in which the nasty, tit-for-tat hackneyed flamewarring of politics as usual can thrive will help us get to a "more intelligent" politics in any sense of the word. - Nhprman 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC) {C}Wikiracism is proven, demonstrated by the fact that you've deleted a page that I've written on the issue, & you've even denied me the historylog. Racist, reprehensible, egomaniac hypocrite,... Wiki has one policy: we do whatever we can get away with. From now on, I must try to remind myself that any time that I mention you, I must try to engage the fact that you are less than half accurate. Please, at least give me a historylog!! Please let me have the history-access, at least,... Better yet, revive the page, & suggest edits. That's your claimed "policy". Seemingly fraudulently. Weaklypedia. Weaklypaedia. Actually, you, if you would keep to your implied ethics, would have a wikiproject on internet-racism, dealing w/ the issue both internally, & externally, as well. I do hope for you to be honest; though, I expect it not. wiki has not proven up to claims nor expectations. Al E. Wales: {C}"What me racist??" Hopiakuta 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC) :I have 0 idea what the heck you're talking about. --mboverload 03:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Because when we do wrong, such as racism, we, including me, often do not recognize the harm. Therefore you do not see the racism on this website. I am attempting to think of adequate nouns to describe the people here, that would not get deleted. Will you delete "bunch of 'webholes'"? How else can I describe racism, If you would deny the appropriate pages to do so?? Wiki is racist. Period. You want to permit me to prove it? Then revive my page, & possibly we can improve from this hypocracy. I do hereby challenge you to be ethical. But, I do expect to remain underneath the carpet. I do expect you to continue to pretend ignorance, &/or enforce ignorance on yourselves. Hopiakuta 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hopiakuta (talk • contribs) . You keep placing that throughout my messages, everyplace where I employ the title-function. I've been doing that for emphasis. {C}I do do it that way, due to my disabilities, & that is simpler than the other functions which require more memorization, & more typing. But, just one of the many forms of racism, wiki does not believe in disability-access, which is summed in a concept called "handicappism". One of a very few mentions of disability that I've located is this half-intestined-effort: Systemic bias of Wikipedia edit The origins of bias The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor. In order to contribute to Wikipedia, a user must have access to both a computer and Internet access and be able to use them. Most of the world's population does not and their views and experience are not directly represented. This includes the developing nations, the population at a lower socio-economic level within industrialized countries and those with disabilities and elderly people. In most countries, minority ethnic and linguistic groups have disproportionately less access to information technology and education than the majority group. This includes, among many others, the First Nations of Canada, the Aborigines of Australia, and economically weaker sections of India. Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians who write English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by editors who grew up in anglophone countries. These also tend to be industrialized nations, accentuating the bias towards contributions from wealthy countries. While areas where English is an official language or where education in English is widespread, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and India, have decent coverage when compared with many other nations, they remain under-represented compared to those countries that speak English natively. Therein, "disabilities" appears once, "disabled" appears zero, "handicappism" appears zero, "racism" tallies zilch, as well. I can, certainly, absolutely, empathize w/ how you, & others, think that that addresses the issue. Well, I could see how I would've thought so, if my experiences had taken a different route. Racism. Handicappism. Just two of your major errors. But you virulently deny this fact, whch I contend is obvious. Hopiakuta 04:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Again: "webhole(s)". Hopiakuta 04:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Please, revive my page. Hopiakuta 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC) I've copied this from: < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=edit >. Hopiakuta 04:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Here is your quote: One hallmark of the blog and wiki world is that we do not wait for permission before making things happen. That is absolutely not honored, as, on wikipedia, I wrote a page about racism & handicappism. That page was completely deleted. No edit suggestions, deleted. Correct regarding your vile hypocracy. Please, at least permit me to get the historylog. Please?? Hopiakuta 06:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 16:16, September 11, 2011 (UTC) Category:Blog posts